Improvements on diplomacy

[aahz_capone]

This has been touched on here and there in many threads but I thought it profitable to have one thread to discuss the quirks of diplomacy and what could be improved on it.

From previous threads its obvious that people want even more options in the diplomacy, it's style being well designed by FIRAXIS for just that. Things that have been mention are selling units (but FIRAXIS said that unbalanced the game so it was dropped), and influencing international politics like in SMAC. (getting someone to stop fighting someone else as a favour or in exchange for cash, whatever.)

I also think that the UN should play a more prominent role in civ3, more akin to that of SMAC. When the UN is built, shouldn't options like global trade tariffs, standardisation of prices and embargoes come into account as an affront to raxing cities and pop rushing?

In fact, if the UN would allow everyone to be seen on one page on the foreign advisor screen, THAT wouold be cool. It would be even cooler that once the UN is built a civ has to build a small wonder to join and reap the benefits of membership, which would be lower trading prices amongst memebers and international pressure to make war/peace with another civ.

[The Andy-Man]

if the builder of the UN could demand a peace keeping force from participants (a civ automaticaly gets a seat as in RL, but may not wish to participate because the UN may demand to much of it etc)

so then this peace keeping force can be placed ANYWHERE (even in enemy cities) and would be used to stop wars, but the builder may just abuse them to fight his own war etc....

[Argos65987]

Originally posted by aahz_capone
...and influencing international politics like in SMAC. (getting someone to stop fighting someone else as a favour or in exchange for cash, whatever.)...

I really liked that option in SMAC. Can something like that be done with the current code/editor?

[aahz_capone]

I have no idea if it can be done with the editor. I myself am not too into that because (a) the editor isn't the greatest thing on earth and (b) I don't like having a game which isn't standardized with everyone elses: it makes for difficult comparisons on gaming and unbalances a lot. I trust in FIRAXIS's almighty genius and skill to bring out changes and options we need. For they are the Alpha and the Omega when it comes to deciding what will eventually be true Civ, master of programming and design that they be.

(brown nosing never hurts)

[HisMajestyBOB]

hmm, that sounds really good.
and for selling units being unbalancing? how about you can only sell to allies, sorta like the Lend-Lease in RL? This way you couldnt sell tanks to some dinky power (who, like the rest of the world, hates you) and then take advantage of the ongoing war and crush both of them.

[aahz_capone]

Now thats an idea! Only selling to pact members... but maybe you'll just have to settle for "giving" units, because that small nation is just SOOOO pathetic. A little like you had in SMAC that you could transfer control over to an ally. I hope FIRAXIS is listening.


DAMN IT! Why the hell aren't all the REALLY cool things in SMAC implemented in civ3?!

[aahz_capone]

Just in case anyone thinks that I'm totally anti-mod, I'm not (I always replace the babylonians with the dutch and have thinner roads). Another thing, I realize that FIRAXIS don't have the time to do EVERYTHING which is why they want a healthy MOD community. I just think that every once in a while, if the MOD is kick ass enough (as judged by the Apolyton crue) the FIRAXIS just might make one or two MODS official. For example the MOd being developed in the thread in Civ3-Files about 16 extra new civs and their csa.

[Taxidopolis]

I love the diplomacy in Civ3 It somehow personalises the whole game and I feel FIRAXIS could do a lot more to improve the diplomacy model as it stands and immensely improve the feel of the gameplay.

The latest patch sorted out the tech-trading during the human player?s turn but, that apart, the diplomacy now appears very mechanical and predictable. It also makes a nonsense of the attitudes that the AI present since they are now meaningless and have very little impact on the game. With enough money in the kitty the human can buy out a civ bound in a MP pact to side with them against their own MP partner. You can do this when at peace with the civ you target and you can do it during the latter stages of a joint pact warring against you. The ?reputation? factor is just meaningless after this since the AI and the human player suffer no real consequences arising from unprovoked war or reneging on a treaty. I?d suggest a penalty of unilateral trade embargos for a civ breaking treaties or waging unprovoked war and no UN win for players suffering a severely degraded player reputation. Real penalties rather than mere descriptive tags.

The model seems half baked anyway and needs completing. In the dialogue screen you can demand things from other civs under the threat of war. All that ever happens is the AI gets progressively more miffed with you. So what ? The AI flips from Polite to Furious for no discernible reason anyway but it still actively trades and makes alliances with you all the same. It?s only when you use the ?active? deals screen that your threats must be taken seriously, though I?ve never had an outcome from that dialogue screen that hasn?t ended in war or a totally worsened trade deal than existed prior to renegotiation. This leads me to think that the rushed release of the game to catch the Xmas market included an unfinished diplomacy model?it seems player reputation was actually meant to count for something in the forming and breaking of alliances and in the negotiating of trade deals at the planning stage but is not yet completed. The latest patch highlights the original shortfalls of this unfinished model imo.

I?d like the programmers to refine this aspect of the game?it?ll pay off in terms of game playability and, in the end, sell for longer and set the base for future versions.

Apols for rant?diplomacy rocks and should and could be better
Oh, and this is NOT an invite for the whiner v fanboy thing to happen again here. Leave it !

[Taxidopolis]

On a more constructive note:

The default setting for player relations is ''at peace' as soon as contact is made.

How about the default being neutral and player attitude leading toward war or peace settings ? A UN player could really try and steer through the game within a neutral stance that way maybe ? Major coding involved maybe but starting as neutral seems natural and the reputation and attitudes thingy could evolve fairly naturally from the start point. Just a thought...

[Ethered]

More reasons to go to war.

I can only think of three that are in the game(Mind you, I always restart halfway through the industrial age)

Winey baby wants the wheel, and declares war if he doesn't get it

Step foot in the mean person's territory. They wail.

or,

Well, I wouldn't mind that place over there. I hear it has a great view...

I always yell at them when they do that, but they never listen.

So, more ways to do atrocities